The question of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The safety of civilians in the conflict regions of Georgia.
The question of foreign laborers’ rights in OPEC countries.
The use of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.
Good Afternoon Honorable Chairs, Esteemed Delegates, and distinguished guests of the house. This delegate is very proud to be here at this year’s MYMUN conference, representing the country of the United States of America. Ladies and Gentlemen, this delegate would like to bring the house's attention to the memory of 9/11, where devastating attacks from terrorists killed thousands of innocent American citizens and courageous heroes while the rest of the world watched in horror. It was then the United States publicly announced a War on Terror and signed the law document known today as the USA PATRIOT ACT. Many believe that the
Where are you going? Remember this can only be 60 seconds.
Forum: The Human Rights I Council Topic One
Submitter: United States of America
Question Of: “The question of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
The Human Rights I Council,
Recalling previous Security Council resolutions concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo, particularly in resolutions 1649 (2005), 1756 (2007), 1794 (2007), and 1804 (2008), and statements by its President dated 2 March (S/PRST/2005/10) and 29 October 2008 (S/PRST/2008/40),
Deeply conscious that escalating conflicts occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are causing over one million innocent Congolese people to become internally displaced despite ceasefire agreements,
Fully alarmed by the sheer amount of damage that has been caused by the fights between the government forces and the rebel government National Congress in Defense of the People (CNDP),
Reaffirming its complete support and co-operation with the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and hopes that the practical measures necessary to assist MONUC to reach its full capability will soon be acted upon,
Expressing with utmost concern that grave human rights violations and atrocious abuses are being committed towards the civilian population of the DRC, and expressing also that neighboring countries are experiencing political, economic, and humanitarian consequences due to results of the prolonged Congo struggle,
Emphasizing that the Northern and Southern Kivu civilians are being subject to mass genocide, sexual violence especially against females (mentioned in resolutions 1820 and 1325), house burning and looting, harassment, and forced child recruitment (mentioned in resolution 1612, 2005), with both parties guilty of these shocking operations in effort of overwhelming the opponent,
Stressing the fact that the current Congolese population is in an overwhelmingly dire situation, and is in urgent need of swift humanitarian assistance that can be provided by external countries and organizations,
Noting with concern that even after the official end of the African World War in 2003 and the Goma Agreement of 2008, hostilities between parties are still smoldering fiercely and displacement is now at its highest peak,
Condemning the illegal trafficking of arms as well as the prohibited exploitation of DRC’s natural resources, recognizing that it as one of the fueling factors of the spontaneous conflicts, as well as anyone who tries to bring any harm or trouble directed at UN peacekeepers, and seeking that these people will be immediately brought to justice for their actions,
Commending the outstanding work of the peacekeeping organizations, examples as the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the MONUC personnel, involved in facilitating the Congo victims under extreme circumstances provided by the instable and unpredictable dangers, and welcomes even more collaborations with other countries,
Guided by Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter; which authorizes the UN to take necessary military and nonmilitary action to maintain and/or restore international peace and security,
1.
NOTE: HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS can be given to Terrorists or people accused of being.
- Clauses in parenthesis are optional.
Human Rights I Council
Main Submitter: United States of America
The question of: “The use of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.”
The Human Rights I Council,
Having adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, also known as General Assembly Resolution A/RES/18/1904 (20 November 1963),
Considering that the representatives who signed the Charter of the United Nations have reaffirmed their enduring faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women without distinction of any kind including but not limited to: race, religion, skin colour, and national origin,
Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims further that all human beings are born free and the recognition of inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all is the base and foundation of ‘freedom, justice, and peace in the world’,
Convinced that racial profiling is morally erroneous and dangerous towards the social environment/progress of the international community, especially allowing investigative attention to be led away from the actual perpetrator; therefore the theory or practice of racial profiling should not be considered justified,
( Reaffirming that racial barriers between human beings definitely have the potential to jeopardize the security and harmony of people living side by side and damage peace relations between nations, )
Alarmed by the manifestations of ethnic and rigid racial categorization and hostilities that are still existing in some parts of the world by some governmental policies focusing on racial differences or hatred; examples being apartheid, segregation or separation,
Calls upon the halt of the home searches and planting of bugs FBI and other investigative groups partake in without the consent and knowledge of the house owner for up to 6 months,
Further Alarmed by the information statistics has provided: Hispanics, African Americans, and Middle Eastern citizens have been subject to feelings of humiliation and extra scrutiny by law enforcement agencies solely based on their appearance, this act happens so often it is referred to as ‘Driving while Black’ (DWB) and ‘Flying while Muslim’ (FWM),
Resolving that it is extremely essential to eliminate disparities in criminal sentencing, and promoting fairness in the Criminal Justice System should be set as a top priority,
1. Solemnly affirms that the absolute necessity of swiftly eliminating all forms and manifestations of racial profiling in the world for the benefit of all global citizens is prominent,
2. Requests that no country shall encourage or advocate its support through police action or otherwise, to any discrimination solely on their race or ethnic origin to any group, institution, or individual,
3. Requests further that police and law enforcement agencies do not use just racial profiling to single out people in public areas and instead use suspicious actions and evidence as factors, and will not tolerate physical ‘persuasion’ inflicted upon citizens before the law is ruled,
4. (Recognizes that Federal Law Enforcement must guard against uncertain threats of terrorism in public areas, so that it is then allowed to use external factors such as people coming in from Middle Eastern countries… ) ß UGH. I don’t know how to say this.
5. Encourages different racial groups in communities to interact with each other socially, as well as understand more through empathies so that later on people will think twice before they judge with racial profiling,
6. Declares that detainees of the police arrest and other arrests are to be given a comfortable, safe and protected environment during their interrogation and never violated of their human rights, especially the Habeas Corpus,
7. Supports the continuation of the H.R. 4611 End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 (ERPA) introduced in the 110th Congress, an act that prohibits law enforcement agents or agencies from engaging in racial profiling,
8. Appeals to reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act signed by former President George Bush in the future, taking the diverse community of the USA and their well being into consideration,
9. Emphasizes that race and ethnicity may be used in terrorist identification, but only to the extent permitted by the nation’s laws, even in the national security context, the constitutional restriction use of generalized stereotypes remains in action.
sigh. more editing for this one ^ too much of criticizing USA.
· The question of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
· The safety of civilians in the conflict regions of Georgia.
· The question of foreign laborers’ rights in OPEC countries
· The use of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.
·
· The question of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
·
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
·
· The Democratic Republic of Congo is currently suffering a long history of brutal military action and conflicts created by the Rebel government and the government’s forces. My country, the United States of America, is working with the MONUC, providing logistics and weapons, and sending peace volunteers to the DRC to help alleviate the problem, as well as sending supplies to the DRC’s victimized citizens, many of them are labeled IDP’s.
·
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
·
· Training the government forces, more cooperation with MONUC is needed and many want to extend the mandate of it. Supplying MONUC with a steady flow of money.
·
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
·
· It’s a full blown battle between the rebel government and the DRC government. There’s so much fighting for control of the Northern and Southern parts of Kivu. Innocent people are getting involved in the conflicts, 70% of the Kivu population are IDPs (Internally Displaced People) and are in need of immediate assistance or else their lives will continue to be ravaged by the terrors of war.
· Given its involvement in the Belgian Congo and Zaire, including its 30-year support for Mobutu, Washington is partly responsible for the conflict in the Congo and thus has an obligation to participate in its resolution.
· American backing for Rwandan and Ugandan intervention in the Congo reflects uncritical acceptance of three stereotypical notions: the leaders of Uganda and Rwanda as “new leaders,” Rwanda’s Tutsi leadership as “serious,” and the Tutsi as deserving of support because they are genocide victims.
· The U.S. has supplied weapons and training to eight of the governments involved in the Congo conflict.
· The U.S. bears significant responsibility for the conflict in the Congo and therefore has an obligation to participate in its resolution. But other outsiders—both African and non-African—have also contributed to this tragic morass. There is blame enough to go around and thus a collective responsibility to put things right.
· Belgium, the former colonial power, failed to prepare its Congolese subjects to assume power. In neighboring Rwanda and Burundi, Belgian rule favored Tutsi domination of the Hutu majorities, setting the stage for successive waves of ethnic killings that have spilled over into the Congo.
· The U.S. played a major role in converting the newly independent Congo into a cold war battleground. In 1961, the Eisenhower administration authorized the murder of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, who had been voted into office just months earlier in the territory’s first-ever democratic election. Washington, which then installed Mobutu in power and kept him there for more than 30 years, bears heavy responsibility for the disastrous economic conditions, massive corruption, and suppression of human rights in Zaire. The U.S. prolonged Mobutu’s rule by providing more than $300 million in weapons and $100 million in military training.
· With the end of the cold war, the U.S., France, and Belgium formed a “troika” designed to pressure Mobutu to move toward democracy. This effort might have produced more positive results had not France defected to support Mobutu and the Hutu military dictator in Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana, in defense of French language and culture, supposedly threatened by “Anglophone” Uganda and its Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) protégés.
· All of the Western powers contributed to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 by ignoring warning signs and reducing the United Nations presence at a time when it should have been reinforced. France compounded the problem by intervening, ostensibly to protect Hutus from the vengeance of the Tutsi-dominated RPF, but also to permit the authors of the genocide to escape. The creation of refugee camps in the Congo near Rwanda was a virtual invitation to the 1997 attacks on the camps. The Clinton administration stalled international intervention, which might have saved refugee lives but which also would have thwarted the effort by Rwanda and Uganda to replace Mobutu with Kabila.
· Despite the end of the cold war, Washington decisionmakers have continued to impose simplistic dichotomies on a complex, ambiguous reality. In Africa, Clinton posited a single solution to the problems of “rogue states”—notably Islamist Sudan and “dinosaurs” such as Mobutu—namely the “new leaders” of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, and Rwanda. Presumably these pragmatists would cooperate with Washington in establishing the new order in Africa.
· Two other stereotypes reinforced the idea of new leaders: the Tutsi as “serious” in contrast to the Hutu and Congolese, and the Tutsi as genocide victims. On the basis of these stereotypes, the U.S. began secret military cooperation with Rwanda and Uganda. In all, the U.S. has supplied weapons and training to eight of the governments directly involved in the war that has ravaged the DRC since Kabila’s 1997 coup, according to a recent World Policy Institute study.
· The 1998 rescue of Kabila by Angola and Zimbabwe led to a stalemate. American efforts shifted to the promotion of a cease-fire, in cooperation with South Africa and Zambia. Such an agreement was signed in Lusaka, Zambia, in July 1999, but the African signers have shown little will or capacity to implement the cease-fire.
· In January 2000, when the U.S. was chair of the UN Security Council, seven African presidents met in New York for a special session in an attempt to make the Lusaka cease-fire stick. They did little beyond reasserting the goals of the agreement. Kabila, however, who addressed the Security Council and conferred privately with American officials, reportedly left New York reassured that his government’s views had been understood. For him and for Washington, this was a small victory.
· In February, the Security Council unanimously approved an American-backed 5,500-strong monitoring mission to observe the Congo cease-fire, but the deployment of the force is scheduled to take four to six months. That time frame assumes that the troops are ready to go, that the fighting doesn’t worsen, and that the warring states guarantee the mission’s security. This bevy of assumptions raises the prospect of further delays. It is also unlikely that a peace can be policed by the belligerents, as the Lusaka Agreement requires, without strong input by neutral forces.
· In addition, because of transport limitations, the UN plans to rely almost entirely on airlifts to get the troop monitors on the ground. That will cost an estimated $500 million in the first year, one-third of the annual UN peacekeeping budget. The United States has said it won’t contribute ground troops but may provide logistics support, which in past peacekeeping operations has included aircraft and communications equipment.
· The UN plans to deploy the force in four key cities: Kindu and Kisangani in rebel-held territory and Mbuji-Mayi and Mbandaka in government-held areas. Adoption of the UN plan represents another minor diplomatic victory for the Clinton administration, but it is far from clear that the conditions necessary to deploy the UN observer force will be met.
· http://www.fpif.net/briefs/vol5/v5n10congo.html
·
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· The issue about the Internally Displaced People of Congo. As well as negotiating issues with both sides. Washington is partly responsible with the Congo Conflict.
·
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· (N/A)
·
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· Erm. I don’t know.
·
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Diplomatic efforts must continue to ensure that a UN monitoring force is expeditiously deployed and has sufficient troops, financing, international backing.
· Washington needs not only to support national dialogue in the DRC but also dialogue in the neighboring states involved in the conflict.
· The U.S. must restrict the flow of weapons and military training to central African countries, provide unconditional debt forgiveness, and increase its development assistance.
·
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· -Rwanda, Uganda. Neighboring countries of the Kivu conflict are also being effected by external and internal problems, as well as trade of resources and US weapons.
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word documents that I have.
· http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Business_War_Congo.html
· · The safety of civilians in the conflict regions of Georgia.
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
·
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
· We have stoked the regional fire. At the Nato summit in Bucharest this year America’s pressed for Georgia and Ukraine’s membership of the alliance. The move was blocked by the Europeans but Nato did give a commitment to offer the two countries membership later. That move was seen in Moscow as a challenge to its dominance in what it calls the “near abroad”, the former Soviet republics.
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
· The war is over.
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· According to websites, Oil was involved.
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· It was involved.
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· ------------
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Russia: Stopping the NATO expansion
· Ukraine: Allicance Pressuring.
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· ---------------
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word Documents.
·
· The question of foreign laborers’ rights in OPEC countries
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
· OPEC countries hire many illegal immigrants for their product making. A vast majority of these workers are paid unfairly and do not get as many rights under their boss. Since they are illegal/migrant workers, it is hard for them to protest because they are not supposed to be there anyways.
·
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
· Erm to stop it? And fight for their rights, I guess.
· Financial aid?
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
· - Workers: illegal, desperate for money, paid for less, basically slaves with some money. Can’t ask for rights, bosses are paying them less and less. Can’t seek help.
· - Bosses: People who work in OPEC, get low paying workers to do their work
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· Helping rights be given to the workers.
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· Involved, as always.
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· -----
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Eerm, bad economy? How to give the rights. Riots, all that.
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· OPEC countries. I’m not one.
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word documents lol.
·
· The use of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
· Terrorist attacks, war on drugs, prejudices, etc. 9/11 was a fateful day where the bubble of security many Americans had enjoyed was burst and officers had a mad scramble to find anyone who looked like the terrorists who had done this deed. Since they were all from the Middle Eastern descent, many Arab-Americans were embarrassingly placed on the front row for scrutinizing tactics.
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
· The USA PATRIOT Act was passed on October 2001. The bill greatly expanded the powers of law enforcement to monitor and detain suspected terrorists, and was passed in direct response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States.
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
· Racial profiling pros: May find terrorists (although none reported found yet), but have succeeded in finding people wanted for drug abuses and other sorts of violations. Protecting American citizens from the harm that came on 9/11/2001. Lower the risks of hijackers.
· Racial profiling cons: Humiliation and anger caused by the police searches, African American and Arab-American people are subject to harsher tactics on the road, as well as much more likely to get pulled over by officers just because they are not white. On airplanes, Muslims can face embarrassment with staring eyes, a more scrutinizing observation, more attention, as well as getting kicked off the plane because someone complained that they were making them nervous. VIOLATION of civil rights, the Patriot Act is a very unconstitutional act passed since the Alien Land act, after the Korematsu vs US case. Any Japanese living on the Pacific Coast was automatically branded as a traitor.
·
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· Finding a very delicate and more efficient way to capture these terrorists, some kind of way that would have minimal contact towards their citizens. The USA Patriot Act was not a good move, because it violates the Bill of Rights, laws set down by our founding fathers. Going against these fundamentals of the land mean that America is going against her own roots of liberty and justice.
·
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· It’s very involved.
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· What I said in the question before the last question.
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Uhmm, Europe might ask me how I propose to make a minimal contact way.
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· The Middle Eastern and African Countries.
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word Documents I have.
Good Evening Honourable Chairs, Esteemed Delegates, and distinguished guests of the house. This delegate is more than proud to be here tonight in this year’s MYMUN conference representing the esteemed country of the United States of America. Ladies and Gentlemen, this delegate would like to bring up the memory of 9/11, where devastating attacks from terrorists rocked the world in horror, killing thousands of innocent American citizens and courageous heroes. It was then the United States, eager to avenge the souls in justice, had publicly announced a War on Terror and signed the law document known today as the USA PATRIOT ACT.
- to be continued.
Please post your final draft of your resolution!
Good Afternoon Honorable Chairs, Esteemed Delegates, and distinguished guests of the house. This delegate is very proud to be here at this year’s MYMUN conference, representing the country of the United States of America. Ladies and Gentlemen, this delegate would like to bring the house's attention to the memory of 9/11, where devastating attacks from terrorists killed thousands of innocent American citizens and courageous heroes while the rest of the world watched in horror. It was then the United States publicly announced a War on Terror and signed the law document known today as the USA PATRIOT ACT. Many believe that the
Where are you going? Remember this can only be 60 seconds.
Forum: The Human Rights I Council Topic One
Submitter: United States of America
Question Of: “The question of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
The Human Rights I Council,
Recalling previous Security Council resolutions concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo, particularly in resolutions 1649 (2005), 1756 (2007), 1794 (2007), and 1804 (2008), and statements by its President dated 2 March (S/PRST/2005/10) and 29 October 2008 (S/PRST/2008/40),
Deeply conscious that escalating conflicts occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are causing over one million innocent Congolese people to become internally displaced despite ceasefire agreements,
Fully alarmed by the sheer amount of damage that has been caused by the fights between the government forces and the rebel government National Congress in Defense of the People (CNDP),
Reaffirming its complete support and co-operation with the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and hopes that the practical measures necessary to assist MONUC to reach its full capability will soon be acted upon,
Expressing with utmost concern that grave human rights violations and atrocious abuses are being committed towards the civilian population of the DRC, and expressing also that neighboring countries are experiencing political, economic, and humanitarian consequences due to results of the prolonged Congo struggle,
Emphasizing that the Northern and Southern Kivu civilians are being subject to mass genocide, sexual violence especially against females (mentioned in resolutions 1820 and 1325), house burning and looting, harassment, and forced child recruitment (mentioned in resolution 1612, 2005), with both parties guilty of these shocking operations in effort of overwhelming the opponent,
Stressing the fact that the current Congolese population is in an overwhelmingly dire situation, and is in urgent need of swift humanitarian assistance that can be provided by external countries and organizations,
Noting with concern that even after the official end of the African World War in 2003 and the Goma Agreement of 2008, hostilities between parties are still smoldering fiercely and displacement is now at its highest peak,
Condemning the illegal trafficking of arms as well as the prohibited exploitation of DRC’s natural resources, recognizing that it as one of the fueling factors of the spontaneous conflicts, as well as anyone who tries to bring any harm or trouble directed at UN peacekeepers, and seeking that these people will be immediately brought to justice for their actions,
Commending the outstanding work of the peacekeeping organizations, examples as the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the MONUC personnel, involved in facilitating the Congo victims under extreme circumstances provided by the instable and unpredictable dangers, and welcomes even more collaborations with other countries,
Guided by Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter; which authorizes the UN to take necessary military and nonmilitary action to maintain and/or restore international peace and security,
1.
NOTE: HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS can be given to Terrorists or people accused of being.
- Clauses in parenthesis are optional.
Human Rights I Council
Main Submitter: United States of America
The question of: “The use of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.”
The Human Rights I Council,
Having adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, also known as General Assembly Resolution A/RES/18/1904 (20 November 1963),
Considering that the representatives who signed the Charter of the United Nations have reaffirmed their enduring faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women without distinction of any kind including but not limited to: race, religion, skin colour, and national origin,
Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims further that all human beings are born free and the recognition of inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all is the base and foundation of ‘freedom, justice, and peace in the world’,
Convinced that racial profiling is morally erroneous and dangerous towards the social environment/progress of the international community, especially allowing investigative attention to be led away from the actual perpetrator; therefore the theory or practice of racial profiling should not be considered justified,
( Reaffirming that racial barriers between human beings definitely have the potential to jeopardize the security and harmony of people living side by side and damage peace relations between nations, )
Alarmed by the manifestations of ethnic and rigid racial categorization and hostilities that are still existing in some parts of the world by some governmental policies focusing on racial differences or hatred; examples being apartheid, segregation or separation,
Calls upon the halt of the home searches and planting of bugs FBI and other investigative groups partake in without the consent and knowledge of the house owner for up to 6 months,
Further Alarmed by the information statistics has provided: Hispanics, African Americans, and Middle Eastern citizens have been subject to feelings of humiliation and extra scrutiny by law enforcement agencies solely based on their appearance, this act happens so often it is referred to as ‘Driving while Black’ (DWB) and ‘Flying while Muslim’ (FWM),
Resolving that it is extremely essential to eliminate disparities in criminal sentencing, and promoting fairness in the Criminal Justice System should be set as a top priority,
1. Solemnly affirms that the absolute necessity of swiftly eliminating all forms and manifestations of racial profiling in the world for the benefit of all global citizens is prominent,
2. Requests that no country shall encourage or advocate its support through police action or otherwise, to any discrimination solely on their race or ethnic origin to any group, institution, or individual,
3. Requests further that police and law enforcement agencies do not use just racial profiling to single out people in public areas and instead use suspicious actions and evidence as factors, and will not tolerate physical ‘persuasion’ inflicted upon citizens before the law is ruled,
4. (Recognizes that Federal Law Enforcement must guard against uncertain threats of terrorism in public areas, so that it is then allowed to use external factors such as people coming in from Middle Eastern countries… ) ß UGH. I don’t know how to say this.
5. Encourages different racial groups in communities to interact with each other socially, as well as understand more through empathies so that later on people will think twice before they judge with racial profiling,
6. Declares that detainees of the police arrest and other arrests are to be given a comfortable, safe and protected environment during their interrogation and never violated of their human rights, especially the Habeas Corpus,
7. Supports the continuation of the H.R. 4611 End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 (ERPA) introduced in the 110th Congress, an act that prohibits law enforcement agents or agencies from engaging in racial profiling,
8. Appeals to reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act signed by former President George Bush in the future, taking the diverse community of the USA and their well being into consideration,
9. Emphasizes that race and ethnicity may be used in terrorist identification, but only to the extent permitted by the nation’s laws, even in the national security context, the constitutional restriction use of generalized stereotypes remains in action.
sigh. more editing for this one ^ too much of criticizing USA.
· The question of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
· The safety of civilians in the conflict regions of Georgia.
· The question of foreign laborers’ rights in OPEC countries
· The use of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.
·
· The question of internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
·
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
·
· The Democratic Republic of Congo is currently suffering a long history of brutal military action and conflicts created by the Rebel government and the government’s forces. My country, the United States of America, is working with the MONUC, providing logistics and weapons, and sending peace volunteers to the DRC to help alleviate the problem, as well as sending supplies to the DRC’s victimized citizens, many of them are labeled IDP’s.
·
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
·
· Training the government forces, more cooperation with MONUC is needed and many want to extend the mandate of it. Supplying MONUC with a steady flow of money.
·
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
·
· It’s a full blown battle between the rebel government and the DRC government. There’s so much fighting for control of the Northern and Southern parts of Kivu. Innocent people are getting involved in the conflicts, 70% of the Kivu population are IDPs (Internally Displaced People) and are in need of immediate assistance or else their lives will continue to be ravaged by the terrors of war.
· Given its involvement in the Belgian Congo and Zaire, including its 30-year support for Mobutu, Washington is partly responsible for the conflict in the Congo and thus has an obligation to participate in its resolution.
· American backing for Rwandan and Ugandan intervention in the Congo reflects uncritical acceptance of three stereotypical notions: the leaders of Uganda and Rwanda as “new leaders,” Rwanda’s Tutsi leadership as “serious,” and the Tutsi as deserving of support because they are genocide victims.
· The U.S. has supplied weapons and training to eight of the governments involved in the Congo conflict.
· The U.S. bears significant responsibility for the conflict in the Congo and therefore has an obligation to participate in its resolution. But other outsiders—both African and non-African—have also contributed to this tragic morass. There is blame enough to go around and thus a collective responsibility to put things right.
· Belgium, the former colonial power, failed to prepare its Congolese subjects to assume power. In neighboring Rwanda and Burundi, Belgian rule favored Tutsi domination of the Hutu majorities, setting the stage for successive waves of ethnic killings that have spilled over into the Congo.
· The U.S. played a major role in converting the newly independent Congo into a cold war battleground. In 1961, the Eisenhower administration authorized the murder of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, who had been voted into office just months earlier in the territory’s first-ever democratic election. Washington, which then installed Mobutu in power and kept him there for more than 30 years, bears heavy responsibility for the disastrous economic conditions, massive corruption, and suppression of human rights in Zaire. The U.S. prolonged Mobutu’s rule by providing more than $300 million in weapons and $100 million in military training.
· With the end of the cold war, the U.S., France, and Belgium formed a “troika” designed to pressure Mobutu to move toward democracy. This effort might have produced more positive results had not France defected to support Mobutu and the Hutu military dictator in Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana, in defense of French language and culture, supposedly threatened by “Anglophone” Uganda and its Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) protégés.
· All of the Western powers contributed to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 by ignoring warning signs and reducing the United Nations presence at a time when it should have been reinforced. France compounded the problem by intervening, ostensibly to protect Hutus from the vengeance of the Tutsi-dominated RPF, but also to permit the authors of the genocide to escape. The creation of refugee camps in the Congo near Rwanda was a virtual invitation to the 1997 attacks on the camps. The Clinton administration stalled international intervention, which might have saved refugee lives but which also would have thwarted the effort by Rwanda and Uganda to replace Mobutu with Kabila.
· Despite the end of the cold war, Washington decisionmakers have continued to impose simplistic dichotomies on a complex, ambiguous reality. In Africa, Clinton posited a single solution to the problems of “rogue states”—notably Islamist Sudan and “dinosaurs” such as Mobutu—namely the “new leaders” of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, and Rwanda. Presumably these pragmatists would cooperate with Washington in establishing the new order in Africa.
· Two other stereotypes reinforced the idea of new leaders: the Tutsi as “serious” in contrast to the Hutu and Congolese, and the Tutsi as genocide victims. On the basis of these stereotypes, the U.S. began secret military cooperation with Rwanda and Uganda. In all, the U.S. has supplied weapons and training to eight of the governments directly involved in the war that has ravaged the DRC since Kabila’s 1997 coup, according to a recent World Policy Institute study.
· The 1998 rescue of Kabila by Angola and Zimbabwe led to a stalemate. American efforts shifted to the promotion of a cease-fire, in cooperation with South Africa and Zambia. Such an agreement was signed in Lusaka, Zambia, in July 1999, but the African signers have shown little will or capacity to implement the cease-fire.
· In January 2000, when the U.S. was chair of the UN Security Council, seven African presidents met in New York for a special session in an attempt to make the Lusaka cease-fire stick. They did little beyond reasserting the goals of the agreement. Kabila, however, who addressed the Security Council and conferred privately with American officials, reportedly left New York reassured that his government’s views had been understood. For him and for Washington, this was a small victory.
· In February, the Security Council unanimously approved an American-backed 5,500-strong monitoring mission to observe the Congo cease-fire, but the deployment of the force is scheduled to take four to six months. That time frame assumes that the troops are ready to go, that the fighting doesn’t worsen, and that the warring states guarantee the mission’s security. This bevy of assumptions raises the prospect of further delays. It is also unlikely that a peace can be policed by the belligerents, as the Lusaka Agreement requires, without strong input by neutral forces.
· In addition, because of transport limitations, the UN plans to rely almost entirely on airlifts to get the troop monitors on the ground. That will cost an estimated $500 million in the first year, one-third of the annual UN peacekeeping budget. The United States has said it won’t contribute ground troops but may provide logistics support, which in past peacekeeping operations has included aircraft and communications equipment.
· The UN plans to deploy the force in four key cities: Kindu and Kisangani in rebel-held territory and Mbuji-Mayi and Mbandaka in government-held areas. Adoption of the UN plan represents another minor diplomatic victory for the Clinton administration, but it is far from clear that the conditions necessary to deploy the UN observer force will be met.
· http://www.fpif.net/briefs/vol5/v5n10congo.html
·
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· The issue about the Internally Displaced People of Congo. As well as negotiating issues with both sides. Washington is partly responsible with the Congo Conflict.
·
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· (N/A)
·
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· Erm. I don’t know.
·
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Diplomatic efforts must continue to ensure that a UN monitoring force is expeditiously deployed and has sufficient troops, financing, international backing.
· Washington needs not only to support national dialogue in the DRC but also dialogue in the neighboring states involved in the conflict.
· The U.S. must restrict the flow of weapons and military training to central African countries, provide unconditional debt forgiveness, and increase its development assistance.
·
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· -Rwanda, Uganda. Neighboring countries of the Kivu conflict are also being effected by external and internal problems, as well as trade of resources and US weapons.
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word documents that I have.
· http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Business_War_Congo.html
·
· The safety of civilians in the conflict regions of Georgia.
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
·
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
· We have stoked the regional fire. At the Nato summit in Bucharest this year America’s pressed for Georgia and Ukraine’s membership of the alliance. The move was blocked by the Europeans but Nato did give a commitment to offer the two countries membership later. That move was seen in Moscow as a challenge to its dominance in what it calls the “near abroad”, the former Soviet republics.
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
· The war is over.
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· According to websites, Oil was involved.
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· It was involved.
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· ------------
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Russia: Stopping the NATO expansion
· Ukraine: Allicance Pressuring.
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· ---------------
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word Documents.
·
· The question of foreign laborers’ rights in OPEC countries
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
· OPEC countries hire many illegal immigrants for their product making. A vast majority of these workers are paid unfairly and do not get as many rights under their boss. Since they are illegal/migrant workers, it is hard for them to protest because they are not supposed to be there anyways.
·
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
· Erm to stop it? And fight for their rights, I guess.
· Financial aid?
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
· - Workers: illegal, desperate for money, paid for less, basically slaves with some money. Can’t ask for rights, bosses are paying them less and less. Can’t seek help.
· - Bosses: People who work in OPEC, get low paying workers to do their work
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· Helping rights be given to the workers.
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· Involved, as always.
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· -----
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Eerm, bad economy? How to give the rights. Riots, all that.
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· OPEC countries. I’m not one.
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word documents lol.
·
· The use of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.
· What is the problem? How does it affect your country?
· Terrorist attacks, war on drugs, prejudices, etc. 9/11 was a fateful day where the bubble of security many Americans had enjoyed was burst and officers had a mad scramble to find anyone who looked like the terrorists who had done this deed. Since they were all from the Middle Eastern descent, many Arab-Americans were embarrassingly placed on the front row for scrutinizing tactics.
· What has your country done to combat the problem?
· The USA PATRIOT Act was passed on October 2001. The bill greatly expanded the powers of law enforcement to monitor and detain suspected terrorists, and was passed in direct response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States.
· What are the various “sides” in the debate?
· Racial profiling pros: May find terrorists (although none reported found yet), but have succeeded in finding people wanted for drug abuses and other sorts of violations. Protecting American citizens from the harm that came on 9/11/2001. Lower the risks of hijackers.
· Racial profiling cons: Humiliation and anger caused by the police searches, African American and Arab-American people are subject to harsher tactics on the road, as well as much more likely to get pulled over by officers just because they are not white. On airplanes, Muslims can face embarrassment with staring eyes, a more scrutinizing observation, more attention, as well as getting kicked off the plane because someone complained that they were making them nervous. VIOLATION of civil rights, the Patriot Act is a very unconstitutional act passed since the Alien Land act, after the Korematsu vs US case. Any Japanese living on the Pacific Coast was automatically branded as a traitor.
·
· Which aspects of the issue are most important to your country?
· Finding a very delicate and more efficient way to capture these terrorists, some kind of way that would have minimal contact towards their citizens. The USA Patriot Act was not a good move, because it violates the Bill of Rights, laws set down by our founding fathers. Going against these fundamentals of the land mean that America is going against her own roots of liberty and justice.
·
· If your country is not involved with the issue, how can it become involved?
· It’s very involved.
· How will your country shape the debate at the conference?
· What I said in the question before the last question.
· What arguments will other countries make?
· Uhmm, Europe might ask me how I propose to make a minimal contact way.
· How do the positions of other countries affect your country’s position?
· The Middle Eastern and African Countries.
· Is there evidence or statistics that might help to back up your country’s position?
· Word Documents I have.
Good Evening Honourable Chairs, Esteemed Delegates, and distinguished guests of the house. This delegate is more than proud to be here tonight in this year’s MYMUN conference representing the esteemed country of the United States of America. Ladies and Gentlemen, this delegate would like to bring up the memory of 9/11, where devastating attacks from terrorists rocked the world in horror, killing thousands of innocent American citizens and courageous heroes. It was then the United States, eager to avenge the souls in justice, had publicly announced a War on Terror and signed the law document known today as the USA PATRIOT ACT.
- to be continued.